Login

russian armor

Should PTRS be stronger?

PAGES (7)down
5 Mar 2015, 19:54 PM
#21
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225



AT grenades in the real world were vastly more dangerous than they currently are in CoH2, which means soviet handheald AT is gimped because of 'design choices' that have little to nothing to do with the reality of the weapons. Even molotovs were terrifying anti tank weapons if used right. Soviets have a preference for close quarters infantry used to clear tanks, and they're not allowed it in game, because Krupp 2 Stronk.

We're also not allowed side armour because that would make german tanks worse but soviet ones mostly exactly the same. 2 Krupp 2 Furious.

Yes, undoubtedly. Sound reasoning. Relic "does not allow side armor" because every evening before going to bed they worship at the shrine of the Panzer. :huhsign:

If you look at actual German armour loss statistics (Jentz, Panzertruppen is easily accessible and has quite a few AARs if you dont wanna go Freiburg), AT grenades were all but irrelevant and did not constitute a major factor, whereas AT rifles figured prominently until the widespread proliferation of skirts, especially in inflicting mission/mobility kills and crew losses.
In fact, the Germans were a good deal more dependant on, and successful with, all sorts of close combat AT implements, AT nades/explosives/Haftholladungen etc than the Soviets...
5 Mar 2015, 20:03 PM
#22
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

All factions should have armored upgrades that cost MP and fuel, this game has way to few upgrades which is why you see the stupid heavy tank meta.

What's the point of making a unit when you can't upgrade it to make it better so it has a shelf life of about 5 minutes.
5 Mar 2015, 20:09 PM
#23
avatar of sneakking

Posts: 655

Permanently Banned


Cant be any worse then the Volk sherk, no matter how you look at it. But, i would stay if the PTRS get a buff the guards should have to pay for it. Far is far, and on the whole i think it would make the unit better if they had the option to not buy the PTSR.


Actually in a way it was worse, imagine fighting a blob that you can't even get close to without sustaining 50% casualties before you have anything heavier than a 222.

At least shreck blobs dont become a problem till 12-15 minute mark. 6 minutes into the game you could have a reking ball of hurt that just rolls around the maps destroying everything in it's path.

5 Mar 2015, 20:09 PM
#24
avatar of y3ivan

Posts: 118

Buff ptrs against infantry something like giving it pathfinders crits.


Buff ptrs against vehicle is a terrible idea. It renders ostheer light vehicles useless and it still gimp went going against heavier tanks like panzerIV. Theres a reason relic Nerf them previously.
5 Mar 2015, 20:12 PM
#25
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Guards are actually better against OKW then Ostheer, since your more likely to be facing light vehicles when dealing with OKW.

Ultimately the PTRS is a anti tank rifle and it would make zero sense for it to be effective against non-light armor. Just allow guards to use their PTRS's to shoot through cover, which they were actually historically known to do so.
5 Mar 2015, 20:31 PM
#26
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

Just allow guards to use their PTRS's to shoot through cover,


Point? PTRS actually destroys cover and team weapons, and there are many more useful ways that are anti-cover (forever mentioned superior indirect fire?). Shooting THROUGH cover could matter less given panzerschrecks and bazookas have more AI than an AT rifle...

So what could make an out-meta'ed piñata be worth building by a real player...
5 Mar 2015, 20:42 PM
#27
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Huge buff for PTRS or give us back old button.
5 Mar 2015, 20:43 PM
#28
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



Point? PTRS actually destroys cover and team weapons, and there are many more useful ways that are anti-cover (forever mentioned superior indirect fire?). Shooting THROUGH cover could matter less given panzerschrecks and bazookas have more AI than an AT rifle...

So what could make an out-meta'ed piñata be worth building by a real player...


Shoot through cover, as in, do damage to infantry behind walls and buildings which is how the PTRS and similar anti tank rifles were used. The Pshrek and Bazooka are 1. More expensive than the PTRS and 2. Rocket based anti tank, not hard round based anti tank.

Being able to hit and kill units in cover would be a pretty big boon for guards, and would make them have a definite roll besides "being shit".
5 Mar 2015, 20:44 PM
#29
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Huge buff for PTRS or give us back old button.


Yeah the ability to instantly declare a tank dead if it approaches your guard squad is obviously balanced.

Button could use a buff/change, but fuck if it needs to be old button.
5 Mar 2015, 20:50 PM
#30
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053


Being able to hit and kill units in cover would be a pretty big boon for guards, and would make them have a definite roll besides "being shit".


If i wanted to kill units in cover, i would use much cheaper and efficient stock options/choose a commander with units/options that do it 5x better... So id rather have the option to throw it on the ground and bury it forever.

Guards are the infantry version of the su-76. Soft counters dont fit Relic's "soviet faction is a faction of hard counters" description...
5 Mar 2015, 20:53 PM
#31
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



If i wanted to kill units in cover, i would use much cheaper and efficient stock options/choose a commander with units/options that do it 5x better... So id rather have the option to throw it on the ground and bury it forever.


Being able to negate cover is something only 1 other unit has in the game, IR StG 44 Obers. And trust me it's a good ability.

Why do you want to bury the PTRS? It would be nice if guards stayed a light anti tank squad with utility instead of becoming Para troopers 2.0.
5 Mar 2015, 20:59 PM
#32
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053



Being able to negate cover is something only 1 other unit has in the game, IR StG 44 Obers. And trust me it's a good ability.

Why do you want to bury the PTRS? It would be nice if guards stayed a light anti tank squad with utility instead of becoming Para troopers 2.0.


"Negate cover" mortars and artillery shells dont care about cover. Carrying around At rifles to do 1/4th what mortars can do is a joke suggestion.

Because soviets have much cheaper and much more reliable at that does it better... Conscript at nades are enough to crap on light vehicles, and zis is always good. PTRS makes Guards piñata that dance and never actually shoot.

I think it would be better to stick to OKW threads...

And dont be afraid of Guard DP's. There is a reason why Guards get two and it costs only 75 munitions (or else no one would buy them).
5 Mar 2015, 21:01 PM
#33
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

It's just a matter of time since someone brings up the fact that PTRS was actually effective againts medium tanks, then someguy explains his facts about KRUPP STEEL , then the other guy starts talking about how german tanks were unreliable, then somebody will bring in the K/D ratio nonsense and eventually this will all break down into a retarded flame war about WW2...


That's just my prediction Kappa
5 Mar 2015, 21:03 PM
#34
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Negate cover means pretending it doesn't exist. It's a powerful ability, and rifles are much more accurate and less RNG than mortars and artillery are.

Soviets do in fact have options to deal with vehicles other than guards, but guards getting a reduction in the drop chance of their weapons while the PTRS gets some help would make them all round good and worth it.

Not everything needs to be just 6 guys with 2 LMG's.
5 Mar 2015, 21:05 PM
#35
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Yeah the ability to instantly declare a tank dead if it approaches your guard squad is obviously balanced.

Button could use a buff/change, but fuck if it needs to be old button.


Target Weak Point :huhsign:

At least button was breakable. TWP is not.
5 Mar 2015, 21:22 PM
#36
avatar of Nebaka

Posts: 133

The PTRS should not exist. Fighting late war tanks with an outdated early war weapon is silly.


...The guys to our right then began firing point-blank at us with AT-rifles. None of the vision blocks were functioning anymore after a short period of time . Zwetti tried in vain to find one of the riflemen, but those guys always went to other positions and then disappeared again as fast as lightning. We reconned by fire a long the entire length of the earthen fortifications. The Russians were so sure of themselves, however, that they even threw hand grenades out from under their cover...

...The Russians had shot a hole in the radiator with their AT rifles. What could be done? Jumping ship or towing was impossible in our situation. We therefore had to try to get back over the bridge under our own power and without the pistons freezing up...

Tigers in the Mud. Otto Carius


The PTRS should have a better chance to crit or blind enemy medium and heavy tanks.
5 Mar 2015, 21:51 PM
#37
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Guards COULD probably holster the crappy PTRS and pull out mosins using their strong soviet backs (as sturms do with minesweeper + stg44 as well as musclemen rangers).


This, in combination with a change on their vet1 ability into something like:

-Defensive stance: (theres a simil ability on the no retreat no surrender commander) unit's can't move but get increase accuracy.
+
-I dont' want RNG crits, and i'm not sure of the way of implementing PTRS dealing other types of crits.
5 Mar 2015, 21:57 PM
#38
avatar of REforever

Posts: 314

The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
5 Mar 2015, 22:11 PM
#39
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



Target Weak Point :huhsign:

At least button was breakable. TWP is not.


Button used to totally lock down a tank and made it stupid easy to kill with AT weaponry. I would rather have old button than mark target in 90% of situations.

Using a few guard squads you could basically make any enemy armor useless with just a small amount of micro.

-Defensive stance: (theres a simil ability on the no retreat no surrender commander) unit's can't move but get increase accuracy.


We already have Para's and 1919 riflemen no thanks.

-I dont' want RNG crits, and i'm not sure of the way of implementing PTRS dealing other types of crits.


Yeah RNG crit stuff is silly.
5 Mar 2015, 22:17 PM
#40
avatar of Brachiaraidos

Posts: 627



Button used to totally lock down a tank and made it stupid easy to kill with AT weaponry. I would rather have old button than mark target in 90% of situations.


He said target weak point, not mark target,

You know. That Ost ability. Only you know how button let you pop smoke, reverse, rotate, and was disrupted by anything at all happening to the guards?

Target weak point locks down a tank and makes it stupidly easy to kill with the AT weapon that the ability is tied to, AKA a PaK.

Using a single PaK you can stun and kill a T-34-85 before it gets a chance to move for literally the micro of pressing a button.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Board Info

199 users are online: 1 member and 198 guests
Crecer13
56 posts in the last 24h
699 posts in the last week
2542 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25089
Welcome our newest member, price_william_65
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM